HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-04 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 4, 1994
6:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 4, 1994, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro -Tern
Sybill Navas
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Jan Strauch
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Johnston
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
. Second on the agenda was approval of the Minutes of the December 7,1993, and December 21,1993,
Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. Mery Lapin moved to approve the Minutes of the December
7, 1993, and December 21, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings, with a second from Tom
Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance establishing the value per
acre of land to be used in the formula to calculate the cash to be paid in lieu of school land
dedication pursuant to 17.17.020 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read
the title in full. Tom Moorhead explained this ordinance related to the provision within the Town
of Vail Municipal Code which required Council, with input from the School Board, to set a valuation
on property for the purpose of cash in lieu of dedication of land. The value stated in this ordinance,
$50,000.00 per acre, was a result of information provided to the County and included a valuation of
properties throughout the County. After brief discussion, Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance
No. 1, Series of 1994, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 1, Series of 1994, a resolution designating a public place within the
Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and
Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities
. of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised TOV was
required to pass a resolution each year designating a place for posting of public notices. Following
brief comment, Mery Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 1, Series of 1994, with a second from
Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 5 was Resolution No. 2, Series of 1994, a resolution granting approval for the issuance of
a permit to Vail Valley Consolidated Water District to proceed with installing two 12" water mains
in the vicinity of Dowd Junction and 1-70. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead
noted the purpose of this resolution was consistent with discussion at the December 21, 1993, Vail
Town Council Evening Meeting directing that any street cut made after December 15,1993, required
a resolution of Council. He explained the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District was in the process
of installing the two 12" water mains. Tom Steinberg recalled the ordinance to 'stop street cuts after
December 15, 1993, was passed to prevent freezing of lines. He noted, in this case, there would be
no connection to pre-existing lines, therefore there was no problem with passing this resolution.
After comment from Larry Grafel regarding the timeline of the installation on this project and this
projects relationship to installing the bridge over the Eagle River, Tom Steinberg moved to approve
Resolution No. 2, Series of 1994, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Mery
Lapin initiated brief discussion regarding affects of not approving this ordinance. He was advised
the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District would then be trespassing and the project would be
stopped. Mery asked if TOV was or should be trading for anything. Mayor Osterfoss noted the
purpose of this project was ensure adequate water supply to areas west of Vail and so that water
could return back through this pipe. Larry Grafel confirmed that water could feed in either direction.
It He added Vail Associates, Inc. also used the pipe for their water allocation for snow -making. Mayor
Osterfoss said there appeared to be substantial public benefit in allowing this to happen. Mery said
he was not questioning public benefit, he was asking if TOV had purchased any of the right-of-way.
He was advised it was TOV property, and Vail Valley Consolidated Water District was presently on
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting htinntes 1141N
TOV property without a permit, but they had come in and asked TOV to accommodate them to
allow installation to continue. Mery asked if they should be participating in the purchase. Larry
Grafel felt perhaps. TOV paid approximately $50,000.00 for that piece of property. Larry Grafel
indicated staff would have to come back and get an easement for them at which time TOV would
talk with the District that will provide TOV with the conditions to get that easement. This resolution
allowed the District permission to do their work until the easement was gotten. Mery felt there
should be more participation in the purchase of that land from the District and VA. Larry Grafel said
those easements were negotiable and he felt that could be worked through. Mery encouraged that.
After further discussion about the timeline, Tom Moorhead advised the District was going to provide
the information necessary to create the easement. They were going to give TOV the legal description
necessary. Mayor Osterfoss asked if other Council members had an interest in pursuing discussion
about a contribution from the District and/or VA in conjunction with this effort. Larry Grafel said
this was outside the Town of Vail. The easement would go to the District, they were the only ones
asking for that easement. VA would not be legally tied to the easement document since they had
contracted with District to provide this service. Mayor Osterfoss said since several Council members
were considering what tradeoffs there might be, this should be considered as a negotiating point.
Larry Grafel was directed to give this issue further consideration and return to Council with
recommendations. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 6 was a presentation and public input session concerning the Lindholm land exchange
proposal. Bill Post, attorney and trustee for the Piney Valley Ranches Trust (Trust), represented
Magnus Lindholm, the landowner. He advised the Trust was the proponent in this proposed
exchange. He displayed several maps depicting two proposals for the proposed exchange areas. He
stated that, at this point, the Trust had not formulated any definitive exchange proposal, that no
proposal had been made to any local bodies for approval or disapproval, and no proposal had yet
41 been made to any state or federal agency. He noted there had already been several public forums
about the proposal, and the Trust realized there was a great deal of public interest. He said all input
was being examined and the Trust had been consolidating changes to the proposal based on its
review of public input.
At this point, Mr. Post introduced Magnus Lindholm. Mr. Lindholm briefly explained the history
of his purchase of his ranch. He advised he bought it to preserve it, to ranch on it, and to take care
of the wildlife. He noted expanded care of the wildlife was one part of the proposed exchange.
Mr. Post gave additional background information about present ranch operations, explained how the
Trust had arrived at its present proposals, and discussed what the Trust was trying to achieve by
way of the proposed exchange. He reviewed the ranch boundaries and noted there were parcels of
property involved in the proposed exchange that were outside of Eagle County.
Mr. Post discussed those particular properties and reviewed the displayed maps. Mr. Post
emphasized Mr. Lindholm's combined interest in the wildlife and ranching. He advised
approximately 1-1/2 years ago, the Trust was approached by a professor from the Wildlife
Department of Colorado State University (CSU), who suggested a wildlife ranching operation, and
funding of a graduate student at CSU to develop an operational program for the ranch. Mr. Post
• noted the Trust did do that, and hoped the Trust's final operational plan would come from the
student's work. Mr. Post explained the Trust was introduced to the Ranching for Wildlife program.
If one qualified for this program with the Department of Wildlife, a minimum five-year operational
agreement was required whereby the owner of the ranch and the public each received certain
benefits. He discussed some of the specifics of the Ranching for Wildlife program including that
involved properties had to be a certain size, contiguous, and able to be controlled. With those
requirements in mind, he again reviewed the displayed maps explaining some of the rationale for
the Trust's proposal. He continued in detail about the areas the Trust was trying to qualify for the
Ranching for Wildlife program and two other parcels the Trust was interested in for a separate
interest it had in buying to prevent development.
Mr. Post discussed how the Town of Avon was involved. He advised when the Trust became aware
of the availability of the Nottingham Ranch there were other major developers bidding on it. The
Trust looked at the Nottingham property and determined, it was a good economic opportunity. The
Trust, seeing that property would be developed by someone, felt it could develop the property in
order to fund its ranch operations and not worry about funding sources in the future.
Mr. Post again reviewed the maps to show land presently owned by the Trust and discussed the
details of the proposed exchange, pointing out areas of public access and areas that would potentially
go the Forest Service. He discussed concerns of the Department of Wildlife (DOW). He noted the
Trust had been accused of trying to exchange land with no value, and after reviewing that public
sentiment, the Trust developed a second proposal which he described and showed on one of the
displayed maps. One of the things the Trust was initially trying to do was to put a buffer area
between Vail and Avon because one of the Trust's considerations at this time was its intent to try to
annex that property into the Town of Avon. However, he said the Trust was totally prepared to have
the Trust work with the land it presently owned. The Trust was perfectly happy to do that. The
Vail Town Gauncil Evening Meeting Minutes 114P94
Trust was not in a situation where it needed this proposed exchange before it moved ahead with its
plans. He said the Trust originally thought it was making a sensible proposal, but, at this point, now
that it had various proposals, it was uncertain what people thought was the best. Mr. Post noted,
• in an exchange, whether legislative or administrative, people had to be convinced what was
happening on the grand scale was for the public benefit.
Tom Glass, a consultant retained by the Trust, discussed the workings of legislative exchanges. He
said these exchanges were based on appraisal. The United States Forest Service (USFS) would have
the primary responsibility for performing the appraisals in this proposed exchange. He stated the
primary reason for going to Congress in this case was because there were two agencies involved, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USFS. He said in a legislative exchange, Congress
determined what was in the public interest. He added he did not expect to see Congress act on any
proposal that did not have widespread support. Although none of the land under discussion was
in Vail, he said he could not imagine this proposed exchange happening if the Towns of Avon and
Vail and Eagle County actively opposed the exchange, and, in fact, he said the Trust would not even
attempt the proposed exchange under those circumstances.
Mr. Glass then thoroughly detailed the parcels being offered for exchange, including 17,162 acres in
Costilla County, 371 acres at Sweetwater Lakes Resort in Garfield County. and 823 acres along the
top of Davos Trail. He said the Trust had also made a clear commitment to Forest Service about
improved access to the wilderness area. He dispelled what he said was misleading information
recently broadcast on television. He said Muddy Pass Road would not be closed because of the
exchange, access to public lands would not be blocked to any significant degree because of the
exchange, wilderness area would not be blocked by the exchange but rather improved in the Vail
Valley area and substantially at Flagstone Park and the Flat Tops area, and access to Red and White
Mountain would not be impaired by the exchange, it would be improved. At this point, Mr. Glass
opened the discussion to comments or questions and noted his primary hope was to receive
guidance, particularly with regard to the Nottingham parcel.
Mr. Glass indicated tonight's meeting was part of an information gathering process for the Trust.
The Trust had previously met with the Avon Town Council and the Eagle County Board of
Commissioners. He said what the Trust was seeking now was an indication from Vail as to how it
felt about this proposed exchange. He felt Vail's interest might be focused on the Nottingham parcel
because it bordered Trappers Run, a site Vail was currently obtaining an appraisal on for possible
purchase to stop development there.
Torn Steinberg asked if lights and housing on the eastern most land of the Trust's proposal which
incorporated the deer migration route would be visible in West Vail when the area was developed.
Mr. Post advised the current situation was visible from the mountain and West Vail.
Mery Lapin asked if there was any land contiguous with the Town of Vail on any of the proposals.
Mr. Post said not to his knowledge. The area between the Town of Vail and the Trust's parcel was
currently owned by the USFS. Merv, referred to a previous comment regarding no planned
development by the Trust on the land at Piney Valley, and asked how the Trust planned on
• guaranteeing that. Mr. Post noted the Trust had been asked whether it was prepared to place
conservation easements on USFS land it might obtain. He felt it was doubtful that would work. He
said conservation easements were a great tax shelter, but the Trust did not presently have the income
to benefit from them. Mr. Post said the Trust already had enough losses to write off and it was not
worried at this time about their income situation. He added the Trust would be happy to consider
conservation easements in the future if it came into a situation where it might be a benefit to the
Trust. Therefore, the Trust, in fact, had no method of guaranteeing that the land would not be
developed. Mr. Post pointed out if the Trust wanted to develop, it had enough property to flood the
entire market in Eagle County with development. He said the developable areas were already owned
by the Trust. He said it was not the Trust's intent to develop that area. Tom Steinberg had no
problem with the Trusts intent now, but was concerned about the future. He suggested if the Trust
did get that land, it immediately deed restrict it or set up a land trust so it did stay the way it was
now. He pleaded to Mr. Lindholm to preserve the land because it could not be predicted what
would happen to it in the future. Mr. Post described the predicament of a ranch near Steamboat
Springs where what Tom Steinberg had suggested had been done and now there was development
all around that ranch and the owner was unable to do anything with the property. Mayor Osterfoss
questioned how much of the land around the proposed exchange was USFS land and how much of
it was privately owned by someone other than Mr. Lindholm. Mr. Post, using the displayed maps,
pointed out the privately owned areas. Mayor Osterfoss clarified that with the exception of the
Olson's land, the Steamboat scenario would not be likely to be duplicated around this parcel because
it was already federally owned. Mery felt when the Trust was trading for land in Costilla County
It or land in Eagle County, the Trust was increasing the developable land in Eagle County. He saw
that as the same basic problem that was part of the Tennenbaum trade and expressed concern about
the precedent these kinds of trades open up. Mery did not question that the Costilla land may have
great value to tourism or the environment, however, he felt there could be a problem locally due to
the limited capabilities to carry the number of people already in the Valley. Without the Trust's
Vail Town Co fl Evening Meeting Minute. 114194
ability to guarantee the land would never be developed, Mery found it difficult to approve of a trade
which increased the potential developable land locally. He felt the proposed exchange would have
a tremendous effect on the quality of life in the Valley. Mr. Post felt if people could not look on a
• larger scale than one's own jurisdiction, he could not convince people locally this was a good project.
Mr. Post stated the Trust understood Council's concern about the future but hoped Council would
look at the larger picture.
Jim Shearer said he understood Avon was interested in annexing this. Mr. Post confirmed that. Jim
asked if that was something appealing to Mr. Lindholm. Mr. Post confirmed that. Mr. Post said the
Trust's plan was to decide which part of the property was best to develop, then take it into the Town
of Avon for annexation all at once. Jim said, in essence, then Vail and Avon would be almost
merged. Mr. Post confirmed that. Mayor Osterfoss clarified that would be the scenario under the
present proposal. Mr. Post said the extent of the Trust's development plans to date was that it had
pictures taken and was having topographical maps made. He noted the Trust owned the old parts
of Nottingham Ranch, and said the Trust did not even know what it was going to do with that. His
initial thoughts were that it was had for him to think of commercial development on those slopes,
so he would think that development would be residential, but he could not answer because he said
the Trust had never even had a discussion about the particulars of the development. He stated there
was no plan at all at the moment. There was discussion about access to the area including that
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) was moving ahead to put on and off ramps at Eagle -
Vail. Jim Shearer asked, if at some point, via the Davos Trail hiking/biking path access might be
linked into the Town of Vail. Mr. Post said if the Trust thought it could get that, it probably would
make a great deal of sense. It would make the property much more accessible and be an advantage
to the people who lived there, but, because it would have to cross USFS land, it would also have to
go somewhere close to Trapper's Run, so the Trust had not considered that as a viable alternative.
Mayor Osterfoss called for public input.* Dick Dixon asked if the Town of Avon was for annexation.
Mr. Post said the Trust had spoken to the Town of Avon about their interest in annexation, however
the Town of Avon had not expressed an opinion one way or another. Mr. Dixon said he saw three
problems the ranch had: trespassing in the Piney area, irregular boundaries, and the ranch not
making any money with its ranching program. He felt the trespassing was the Trust's problem, the
irregular boundaries were something every ranch in the state had to deal with, and financial
problems were also the Trust's problem and open space should not have to be sacrificed to finance
that. He was adamantly opposed to the trade. Torn Olden, pointing to the extreme value of land
in the Vail Valley, suggested the Trust examine other alternatives. He felt fewer people in today's
society held hunting as strongly as at one time. He felt the people in the Valley were changing and
improved access for everyone needed to be provided. Chuck McGuire inquired about contiguous
lands already in place. Mr. Post said the Trust owned 5-6,000 acres of land that was contiguous and
he discussed contiguous lands in relation to the Ranching for Wildlife Program. Mr. McGuire
expressed concern about loss of fishing and hunting access to the general public. Bob Armour asked
who determined the number of hunting licenses issued. Mr. Post advised the DOW did. Mr.
Armour also asked about the cost to hunters who wanted to go into that area and use it if the Trust
acquired the land. Mr. Post said a minimum of 40% of the licenses had to go to the public and the
public could not be charged anything. There was brief discussion as to how the exchange would
improve access to Red and White Mountain. Mr. Armour further said he felt it hard to believe the
Trust did not know the development potential of the Nottingham Ranch. Mr. Post said the Trust had
never denied for a moment it wanted to develop it, and he said it would be insulting to Council and
the public if he said the Trust did not want to make money when they developed it, and he assumed
the Trust would maximize whatever the potential was on that property. Celina Ward asked how the
proposed annexation was of benefit to the general non -hunting public. She saw this as a total loss
of mountainous area. The peace of mind knowing the land was out there was important to her. She
felt the more these exchanges occurred, the more popular they became, and the net loss was to the
public. She also inquired about fences being put up and how the wildlife would benefit from that.
Mr. Post said, other than hunters, he had never seen anyone out there except in the fall. He said no
one went into the area referred to by Ms. Ward. He discussed types of fences they could use that
would be safe and uninhibiting to wildlife. The fences would be more as a deterrent to trespassers.
Mr. Post mentioned oil and gas drilling by the USFS in the area and reviewed a document called
"Existing and Pending Oil and Gas Locations." He said the Trust would not like to see oil and gas
operations there. Kirk Mecklenbourg was curious about the whole proposed land exchange. He
wanted to know who Mr. Lindholm was as a possible wildlife manager and developer of housing.
Mr. Mecklenbourg stated he had no problem with Vail and Avon merging. He understood the funds
generated from the development proposal would enable the Trust to better manage the property.
He wanted to contribute whatever he could to the wildlife management and help generate more than
two or three proposals for the proposed land exchange. Jim Chaplain questioned Mr. Lindholm's
motive to become a wildlife manager and a developer. He questioned Mr. Lindholm's true interest
it in the wildlife. Long time local, Pete Burnett expressed concern about the extent of development
happening and Trust companies buying up the whole Valley. Mr. Post was asked how many people
were in the Trust. He said, because it was a family Trust, he preferred not to answer that question.
or to discuss how the Trust was set up. Mr. Post confirmed that Mr. Lindholm was not a United
States citizen. Dave Eider, a licensed outfitter in Colorado, noted he was familiar with the land under
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1/4194
discussion. He advised that Mr. Post had contacted him early in the year to inform him of what was
going on in that area because Mr. Post was aware Mr. Eider had a USFS permit in that area. Mr.
Eider said he worked an agreement with Mr. Post, for this year only, to keep an eye on the properties
for Mr. Post in exchange for the right to travel through. Mr. Eider said there was a legal access off
the Rock Creek Trail that went around the property. Mr. Eider felt for what the Trust wanted to do
as far as improvements for wildlife, the Trust had an excellent idea, and from that standpoint he
wanted to see this go through.
Bill Andre, DOW, addressed questions regarding the Ranching for Wildlife program. He explained
it was a system established by the DOW to convince ranchers of the value of the wildlife. The DOW
set up the program to allow ranchers to gain economic value from the wildlife. He said he had
spoken to the former ranch manager, Rocky Mosier, about Ranching for Wildlife and trying to get
more public hunting on the property because there was a problem managing elk herds hiding on
private property. He said the DOW had the same concern with the Avon piece, whether it was ever
developed or not, the elk find the private property and go hide there. The DOW needed some way
to be able to harvest the elk. Mr. Andre advised there was a document available detailing guidelines
of the Ranching for Wildlife program.
Mery Lapin asked for further information about the legislative versus administrative exchange
processes. Mr. Andre advised he had never been involved with a legislative exchange, but had been
involved with several administrative exchanges. He said he felt more comfortable with
administrative exchanges because dealings were local, and if there was a problem it could be
discussed with the local ranger. There was discussion about what the input of the local DOW, local
BLM, and local USFS was under a legislative exchange. Mr. Andre advised he had not, at this time,
received information defining how or when their input would come or at what value it would have.
He said, in an administrative exchange, the DOW would be contacted and asked for their comments,
concerns, and recommendations. Mr. Glass added in an administrative exchange the process was
more clearly defined than in a legislative exchange. He said what the Trust was doing with the BLM,
the USFS, and the DOW at this time was supplying input as the Trust was formulating a proposal.
But, the Trust did not have a proposal yet. He added the Trust was hoping to get input from the
Town of Vail, particularly about the Nottingham piece. During the formal process in Congress, the
USFS and the BLM were always asked to testify, state government and agencies were frequently
asked to testify, and the hearing was very similar to a hearing on a Town ordinance. Mery pointed
out the Trust mentioned one of the major reasons it was going through the legislative approach was
because there were two different agencies involved, the BLM and USFS. However, Mery recalled the
Trust saying it had been done before. He asked why the Trust chose the legislative approach versus
the administrative approach above and beyond that reason. Mr. Glass said the Trust owned the land
in Costilla County and the government wanted it. He advised he may have misstated facts if he had
said the Trust had done exchanges of this magnitude between the two agencies on an administrative
basis. He said they had done small exchanges entirely within single counties, but did not think their
proposal could be accomplished here on an administrative basis. Tom Steinberg asked Mr. Andre
about his concerns about the Avon land exchange with regard to the deer migration route. Tom
Steinberg asked Mr. Andre if that problem was solved. Mr. Andre said some of his supervisors and
the Trust had met, and the answer given to the Trust was their newest proposal was better than the
original for deer migration. He reviewed the displayed maps showing the differences in the original
proposal and the present proposal. He discussed winter range for deer and elk and stated the
Nottingham Ranch was important for that. He acknowledged the potential that Nottingham Ranch
would be developed, and said it could only be hoped that, when the time came, whoever was in
control of that, would give ample consideration to development adjustments related to wildlife needs.
Mr. Andre felt there were issues other than this proposed exchange that would affect them. There
were more questions from the public about the specifics of the Ranching for Wildlife program. Mr.
Andre advised when the program was signed up for, it was a minimal five year commitment, and
it was up to the landowner and the DOW to make any renewal decisions. If a landowner decided
to drop out of Ranching for Wildlife, there would be no guarantee of public access other than what
the landowner decided. Mr. Andre advised the DOW had consistently tried to get this program on
that ranch in the past, no matter who the owner was.
Further public input included comments from John Mills who expressed opposition to the proposal
in a long range planning process and he felt the land would be developed. Kent Rose stated this was
a grand opportunity to make a big mistake. He said if it was elected to support this land exchange,
that decision was forever. He was not in support of a land exchange of this magnitude. Bill Burnett
questioned how this proposed exchange fit into the Eagle County Master Plan and suggested the
Trust get involved with helping develop the various area Master Plans. Mr. Post stated the Trust had
never considered it was part of a Master Plan. Don Hagen felt this issue was being dealt with as if
there was a problem, but felt any decision made should be one that could be changed in the future
It if necessary. He said once this land was given up, it would be lost forever. He felt the lack of
impassioned arguments in favor of keeping this public land represented a very grievous state. Mr.
Post responded with additional detail about how the Trust felt the public would be better served if
the public was involved with Mr. Lindholm and his ranches and the Ranching for Wildlife program.
Veil Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1/4194
Allen Best asked Mr. Andre about the idea of a trade for the land above Eagle -Vail between Avon
and Vail for the Piney Valley. He asked Mr. Andre what the benefits from the wildlife perspective
were. Mr. Andre said the primary benefit would be to the ecosystem.
After public input, Mayor Osterfoss said this meeting represented an opportunity for public input
rather than a decision point from the Vail Town Council. Mr. Post confirmed the Trust was
interested in receiving a position from the Vail Town Council, including no position. He said he
appreciated the public input, which would be examined with other public input to help the Trust
decide whether to go ahead, how to go ahead, and if there were other modifications to the proposal
which could be made. He hoped within the next thirty to sixty days the Trust could return to Vail
Town Council, Avon Town Council, and the County Commissioners. Again, he said the Trust would
particularly like to hear feelings on the Avon property, both from Avon and from Vail because when
the Trust proceeded it was important to it to know what people would like to see before they did
get involved in a development stage.
Mayor Osterfoss asked if the Trust had given consideration to annexing the Nottingham parcel,
particularly the portion that would be visible and contiguous with the Town of Vail, into the Town
of Vail. Mr. Post stated the Trust had made no final determination of where it should annex this
property or if it should be annexed, but their initial approach had been with the Town of Avon.
Mayor Osterfoss suggested annexation into the Town of Vail might be something the Trust would
review to see if that was a realistic possibility. Mr. Post said they would certainly look at that
possibility. Sybill Navas inquired if the Avon land rearrangement could be handled as a separate
negotiation from Vail. She felt it would be a benefit to everybody if the Trust came back when they
actually had a plan of how it thought the land might be developed, and then discuss the layout of
the parcel with Avon, Vail, and the County. She felt people were reluctant to give up open space
and the forest where there was access to the hunting. Mayor Osterfoss felt the public was troubled
by the thought of losing public land in this area and gaining public land 200 miles south of here.
She felt Sybill's idea would address that and asked if there was a way this proposed exchange could
provide benefit strictly to this area.
Mr. Post indicated the Trust needed to review all new input to develop a plan to come bark to the
various entities involved entities.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
I* ATTEST:
PPI I, 42LZ�4�e hm6zt_
Holly L. WCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorienne S. Deto
f('Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
CNINSJAN4.94
Marg Osterfoss, Mayor
Vail Town Council Svening Meeting Minute® 114194